I don’t understand this question. Each piece of evidence must be examined and judged on it’s own merit and also in the larger context. It’s a case by case basis. I can say for example, that statistically eye witness testimony is unreliable, but after listening to a particular testimony, I may reasonably conclude that the witness in question is exceptionally trust worthy, and another person might disagree. You can’t generalise about anything.

In this case we don’t have a great deal of hard evidence. But I don’t think that’s the problem with the existing suspects. They’re not bad suspects because the hard evidence excludes them, in fact I’d say it’s the scarcity of hard evidence that keeps many of the suspects alive. The real issue is that whilst there may have been valid reasons initially to pursue them as leads, none of the suspects so far have ever really "panned out". It’s the fact that once under scrutiny no harder evidence has been forthcoming. This absence of evidence, under such scrutiny, is what I think slowly erodes peoples belief in these suspects.

Over time too other facts have been unearthed that have cast some doubt over the popular suspects. Kane’s distinctive accent, the extent of Ross’s ill health, the questionable character and motives of informants like Goldcatcher and Don Cheney, have further eroded confidence in those so far named. Don’t even get me started on some of the more fanciful suspects touted, often by the cleverest of this forums inhabitants.

To answer your question though, not very reliable.

Not very I think when you consider someone like ALA was still very much suspected of being the best suspect despite them failing to match the handwriting and prints to him. The Detectives who worked the case weren’t exactly some amateurs working their first case they had plenty of experience of solving murder cases.

We will only ever know for sure if the hard evidence is worth something or completely useless when a suspect is actually properly matched to the handwriting or the prints. Until then will also be legit doubts and questions about how good the prints and handwriting is.

One unknown suspect? Thousands of unknown suspects.

I don’t understand this question. Each piece of evidence must be examined and judged on it’s own merit and also in the larger context. It’s a case by case basis. I can say for example, that statistically eye witness testimony is unreliable, but after listening to a particular testimony, I may reasonably conclude that the witness in question is exceptionally trust worthy, and another person might disagree. You can’t generalise about anything.

In this case we don’t have a great deal of hard evidence. But I don’t think that’s the problem with the existing suspects. They’re not bad suspects because the hard evidence excludes them, in fact I’d say it’s the scarcity of hard evidence that keeps many of the suspects alive. The real issue is that whilst there may have been valid reasons initially to pursue them as leads, none of the suspects so far have ever really "panned out". It’s the fact that once under scrutiny no harder evidence has been forthcoming. This absence of evidence, under such scrutiny, is what I think slowly erodes peoples belief in these suspects.

Over time too other facts have been unearthed that have cast some doubt over the popular suspects. Kane’s distinctive accent, the extent of Ross’s ill health, the questionable character and motives of informants like Goldcatcher and Don Cheney, have further eroded confidence in those so far named. Don’t even get me started on some of the more fanciful suspects touted, often by the cleverest of this forums inhabitants.

To answer your question though, not very reliable.

Each piece of evidence seemed to have been examined and thus we have the various suspects. However, fingerprint, blood (DNA), and footprint does not match any of them in their individual cases. I can clear Ross Sullivan as he has an alibi and whatever physical evidence they had for the Cheri Jo Bates murder doesn’t match him. This despite he fits the description and he looks a lot like the sketch.

>> in fact I’d say it’s the scarcity of hard evidence that keeps many of the suspects alive. The real issue is that whilst there may have been valid reasons initially to pursue them as leads, none of the suspects so far have ever really "panned out".<<

You do bring up a good point if there is a scarcity of hard evidence. Staying with the Cheri Jo Bates case, the poem on the desk may not have anything to do with her killing but another one prior to it in Riverside.

I agree that none of the suspects so far have panned out and that’s why there may be another suspect that no one yet knows about. Who or who they are may not be ever known unless some more facts are discovered. We may need another case and finding out about other So Cal unsolved murders seem promising.

Not very I think when you consider someone like ALA was still very much suspected of being the best suspect despite them failing to match the handwriting and prints to him. The Detectives who worked the case weren’t exactly some amateurs working their first case they had plenty of experience of solving murder cases.

We will only ever know for sure if the hard evidence is worth something or completely useless when a suspect is actually properly matched to the handwriting or the prints. Until then will also be legit doubts and questions about how good the prints and handwriting is.

Yes, I agree and that’s why it’s frustrating looking at the past evidence. Maybe there’s something that’s been overlooked but in the canonical cases, but what is there seems to lead to a dead end.

One unknown suspect? Thousands of unknown suspects.

No evidence for other thousands unknown suspects. There are several, but they all seem to be eliminated but we don’t know all that LE have.